[Boost-commit] svn:boost r80893 - trunk/tools/build/v2/tools

Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r80893 - trunk/tools/build/v2/tools
From: ghost_at_[hidden]
Date: 2012-10-06 16:24:01

Author: vladimir_prus
Date: 2012-10-06 16:24:00 EDT (Sat, 06 Oct 2012)
New Revision: 80893
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/80893

Log:
Fix rtti=off and exception-handling=off for gcc.

Patch from Alexey Nikitin.

Text files modified: 
   trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam |     4 +++-                                    
   trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.py  |     4 +++-                                    
   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Modified: trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam
==============================================================================
--- trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam	(original)
+++ trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.jam	2012-10-06 16:24:00 EDT (Sat, 06 Oct 2012)
@@ -381,7 +381,9 @@
 
 toolset.flags gcc.compile OPTIONS <debug-symbols>on : -g ;
 toolset.flags gcc.compile OPTIONS <profiling>on : -pg ;
-toolset.flags gcc.compile OPTIONS <rtti>off : -fno-rtti ;
+
+toolset.flags gcc.compile.c++ OPTIONS <rtti>off : -fno-rtti ;
+toolset.flags gcc.compile.c++ OPTIONS <exception-handling>off : -fno-exceptions ;
 
 rule setup-fpic ( targets * : sources * : properties * )
 {

Modified: trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.py
==============================================================================
--- trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.py	(original)
+++ trunk/tools/build/v2/tools/gcc.py	2012-10-06 16:24:00 EDT (Sat, 06 Oct 2012)
@@ -282,7 +282,9 @@
 
 flags('gcc.compile', 'OPTIONS', ['<debug-symbols>on'], ['-g'])
 flags('gcc.compile', 'OPTIONS', ['<profiling>on'], ['-pg'])
-flags('gcc.compile', 'OPTIONS', ['<rtti>off'], ['-fno-rtti'])
+
+flags('gcc.compile.c++', 'OPTIONS', ['<rtti>off'], ['-fno-rtti'])
+flags('gcc.compile.c++', 'OPTIONS', ['<exception-handling>off'], ['-fno-exceptions'])
 
 # On cygwin and mingw, gcc generates position independent code by default, and
 # warns if -fPIC is specified. This might not be the right way of checking if